From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marks v. United Steel Works Corp.

City Court of New York, New York County
Aug 7, 1935
160 Misc. 678 (N.Y. City Ct. 1935)

Opinion

August 7, 1935.

Jacob Chaitkin, for the plaintiff.

W.J. Mahon [ A.C. Sherman of counsel], for the defendant.


This motion for summary judgment is granted. In Perry v. Norddeutscher Lloyd ( Bremen) ( 150 Misc. 73), affirmed by our Appellate Term, the Appellate Division denied leave to appeal. The foreign enactment is not to be given effect because of certain provisions of the "indenture," manifestly intended to enlarge and protect the rights of prospective purchasers of the obligations, provisions not intended to justify restriction of such rights by rendering ineffectual, in the event of such an enactment, the numerous other provisions intended to assure purchasers of the obligations against contentions such as defendant now urges. In Glynn v. United Steel Works Corporation ( 160 Misc. 405) it seems that the court merely followed the rule that, on an application of the kind then under consideration, the sufficiency of a defense will not ordinarily be decided.

No published opinion.

Let judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint. Execution is stayed for five days after service upon the attorney for the defendant of notice of entry of judgment.


Summaries of

Marks v. United Steel Works Corp.

City Court of New York, New York County
Aug 7, 1935
160 Misc. 678 (N.Y. City Ct. 1935)
Case details for

Marks v. United Steel Works Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JACK MARKS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STEEL WORKS CORPORATION Defendant

Court:City Court of New York, New York County

Date published: Aug 7, 1935

Citations

160 Misc. 678 (N.Y. City Ct. 1935)
289 N.Y.S. 1035